why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

I don't know why. As I've stated, I agree that he should have done so, and think that was an extremely unwise and dire decision on his part.

It is part of his character. He doesn't care about people. And he doesn't like people, not even his own family. He claims he did his duty to Robert but he is not telling the truth there. His duty would have been to go to Robert at once, not to go through Jon Arryn or stop uncovering Cersei's betrayal after Jon died.

Stannis also brags about how he did his duty when he defended Storm's End and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens, but does he ever elaborate why he chose Robert over Aerys? His brother over his king, apparently 'a tough call for him' (something that should have been an easy call for any proper brother)? Do we know whether he supported Robert out of brotherly love and affection (or brotherly duty) or because he was calculating that he could be king one day himself, if Robert prevailed, as Robert's younger brother and heir presumptive? We don't know.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

I don't know, does he come to this conclusion without any sound reasoning? I don't recall the text on this matter, and would have to check into this before giving an informed response.

There is no informed response there. Only Stannis' word. And Stannis is lying or twisting the truth quite often. He condemns and executes his wife's uncle because the man was doing his fucking duty. Lord Alester Florent was his Hand. He was speaking with Stannis' voice. If you are a king and name a Hand and then end up giving in to your fucking depression, not receiving anybody or talking to anyone but your mistress then you have no right to complain if your Hand makes decisions without consulting you.

Stannis burns Alester Florent alive for a crime he himself also committed against his royal brother Robert. He kept things from the king out of his own selfish interests. Alester wanted to save his life and keep his titles and lands. Just as you claim Stannis wanted to save his own life when he 'fled' KL. But he had no right to do that by Stannis' own standards.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

But, I would think that it's a reasonable asumption in hind sight, considering the situation.

Well, it is actually a wrong conclusion. Cersei had no hand in Robert's death. She just helped him to get drunk. Robert would have never died had he not insisted on hunting the boar all by himself. 

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

See above.

Well no, Aegon wasn't anointed the Kingship due to a claim; As you kindly pointed out, he conquered the ruling Kings.

Just as Renly (and Robert before him) would have removed all the men standing against him. Renly perhaps betrayed King Joffrey, his brother's chosen and anointed heir, but he never betrayed Stannis because Stannis, too, was trying to steal Joff's crown. Stannis cannot prove that Cersei's children aren't Robert's and until such a time as he can he has no right to challenge Joffrey's claim.

Winning battles helps your claim. After Aegon conquered all of Westeros but Dorne people acknowledge him as their king, never mind the fact that he had no claim. The same way Stannis' claim got getter after he put down Renly and won the allegiance of some of his men.

Aegon was also in a much better position after he had burned Harrenhal and conquered the Stormlands.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

By this logic, as someone else pointed out up thread, the Masters of Slavers bay would have as strong of a claim on the Iron throne as anyone else in the Seven Kingdoms.

That isn't the case. The point is that people in Westeros don't give a rat's ass about the strength of Stannis' claim in comparison to Renly's or Joffrey's. They follow who they want, not whom you think they should. Renly is very much seen as Robert's true heir. He looks like him, talks like him, has his charisma, geniality, and ability to make friends. He is popular. Stannis is nothing like either Robert or Renly. He is the ugly child, the man you ignore because you cannot stand him. Primogeniture means nothing if you lack charisma, especially if you aren't a king's son but just a usurper's brother.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

I'm not sure why many here want to keep conflating a claim to the throne, with an illegal treasonous usurping, or a military coup. These are not the same things.

Tell that to Stannis. He rebelled against King Joffrey just as Renly did.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Although, your assertion that Stannis has, or "would continue to conduct a religious crusade against the Faith and the other religions in Westeros" is quite an inaccurate assessment of Stannis' stance in regards to religion, and frankly, a load of

Stannis burned the sacred godswood of Storm's End which was part of the castle since the days of Durran Godsgrief. He turned against the Seven on Dragonstone and burned the figures of the Seven as well as people worshiping them later on when they defied him. Stannis is wax in the hands of his foreign witch-whore. What do you think Melisandre would have demanded of Stannis in return for her help to seat him on his throne? The Great Sept of Baelor as her own new seat, transformed into a red temple? The High Septon himself as a sacrifice to R'hllor? The establishment of R'hllorianism as the new religion of the entire Realm?

Either some or all of the above. And if you think that Stannis can deny Melisandre anything she truly desires you are mistaken. That is pretty obvious.

We see in AFfC that the Poor Fellows were never dead. The Faith Militant was never truly gone, not in the heart of the people. They are back there, in strength, even before Tommen restores the orders. The idea that the Realm at large would ever accept a king who does not follow the Seven is a huge stretch, but they sure as hell would never exact a foreign witch as their true queen or allow such a king to turn against the gods of their fathers.

Stannis radicalism, using Melisandre and her faith and powers as a tool to take the throne shows how ambitious he actually is. He doesn't believe in Melisandre's crap. But he realizes that she has power and he is more than happy using that power to get what he wants (a crown he allegedly doesn't want) than trying diplomacy and compromise. He allows and goes along with Melisandre's idea to take out Renly first because of a vision Mel had. The vision that Renly would defeat Stannis on the Blackwater if he was still alive at that point. That's why Renly had to go.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Well, scratch out the "basically little more than" part, and this is also a description of Renly.

Sure, but Renly had more support. If you have the Stormlands and the Reach behind you in Westeros you can call yourself king. If you have a bunch of islands and some sellswords you are in much weaker position.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

The difference is that it would be a true description of Renly; With Stannis, it's the false perception that most Westerosi have of him.

Even if we bought Stannis' story that he is the true heir of his brother Robert. Robert himself was just a usurper. The heir of a usurper has no right to anything.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

That's nonsense. Stannis' claim didn't get stronger after Renly was executed. He may have garnered more support for his claim as a result. However, his claim, as it always was, was still that of the rightful heir to the IT, and first in the line of succession, according to the laws of Westeros.

Nope. His blood claim remained the same, but popular support weighs in on that and is, at times, much more important than who was born earlier. Blood claims don't seat and keep you on a throne. People do. And they tell you what your claim is worth, you don't tell them. You can try to tell them but Stannis' blood claim is about worth as much to the majority of the people of Westeros as the piece of paper Tommen gave to 'Lord' Emmon Frey is worth to the Riverlords. Absolutely nothing.

[John Doe]

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Stannis attacked Renly first. Stannis is the attacker. Had Tommen landed on Dragonstone and started cutting down Stannis' forests to build siege weapons to attack Dragonstone then Tommen would have struck first. 

Stannis instigated the attack. 

Nonsense. Renly wanted to be king while Stannis came before him. Robb even describes it as "taking his brother's crown". Renly attacked him by doing so. 

 

 

[John Doe]

8 hours ago, khal drogon said:

Robert initially had only 4 kingdoms. Only near the end of the war where he emerged as clear victor other kingdoms kneeler. Maybe that would have happened in Renly's case too.

What justification Robert had other than he won with swords? He used his Targ blood to make himself king while all Targaryens but two kids were killed and those two were made to run for their lifes. If Renly had won he could have simply justified that the Lannisters were evil and his brother is a crazy religious nut and that makes him the better king. Since he won through swords he can use the fancy word "right of conquest" and use that as a justification for his usurpation. No lord will object as they didn't object to Robert.

Aerys was mad and his only living heirs who weren't involved in the war were not only little children not fit to rule, but would most likely have avanged their father/grandfather. So the only way for the rebels to wipe the slate clean was changing the dynasty. So Robert, leader of the rebellion and the next in line, became king. This is quite different from Renly just randomly ignoring Stannis when crowning himself. 

Renly could have won, but he didn't, so that point is moot. What is relevant is that Stannis was justified in defending his superior claim against Renly (because, whether you accept Joff or Stannis as the rightful king, Stannis came before Renly in the line of succession). 

[Darkstream]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is part of his character. He doesn't care about people. And he doesn't like people, not even his own family. He claims he did his duty to Robert but he is not telling the truth there. His duty would have been to go to Robert at once, not to go through Jon Arryn or stop uncovering Cersei's betrayal after Jon died.

And why didn't Aryn go to Robert at once? I guess he also didn't care about people, or like anybody, and was just as remiss as Stannis. 

Quote

Stannis also brags about how he did his duty when he defended Storm's End and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens, but does he ever elaborate why he chose Robert over Aerys? His brother over his king, apparently 'a tough call for him' (something that should have been an easy call for any proper brother)? Do we know whether he supported Robert out of brotherly love and affection (or brotherly duty) or because he was calculating that he could be king one day himself, if Robert prevailed, as Robert's younger brother and heir presumptive? We don't know.

Give me a break. Yeah, a year before the war ended, when nobody even knew who was going to be the King, Stannis had calculated that his brother would be King, and then not produce any heirs, and then die at a relatively young age, leaving the much coveted throne open for him to cease. What a load, sounds quite likely...if you are a biased Stannis hater, looking for a way to smear his character, and support your fan-fic theories.

Quote

There is no informed response there. Only Stannis' word. And Stannis is lying or twisting the truth quite often. He condemns and executes his wife's uncle because the man was doing his fucking duty. Lord Alester Florent was his Hand. He was speaking with Stannis' voice. If you are a king and name a Hand and then end up giving in to your fucking depression, not receiving anybody or talking to anyone but your mistress then you have no right to complain if your Hand makes decisions without consulting you.

Oh, so as you've previously stated, Stannis has no right to stick his nose in his brother's business, in an attempt to investigate acts of treason being committed against him, however, Florent does have the right to make unauthorized deals that conflict with his King's wishes and objectives. Sure, that's not a biased, hypocritical stance you've taken. I love how you're full of excuses for Florent, but completely disregard the situation, and ignore the strained relationship between Robert and Stannis, which is as it is, in large part due to Robert's treatment of Stannis dating back to when they were children.

----

Honestly, I can't even stomach to read the rest of your biased, vitriol spewing post at the moment. Perhaps if I have some spare time later, and am bored out of my mind I will give it a read and respond.  

[John Doe]

@DarkstreamThe problem appears to be that Lord Varys has a fundamentally flawed view on Stannis' character. 

[khal drogon]

3 hours ago, John Doe said:

Aerys was mad and his only living heirs who weren't involved in th e war were not only little children not fit to rule, but would most likely have avanged their father/grandfather. So the only way for the rebels to wipe the slate clean was changing the dynasty. So Robert, leader of the rebellion and the next in line, became king. This is quite different from Renly just randomly ignoring Stannis when crowning himself. 

Renly could have won, but he didn't, so that point is moot. What is relevant is that Stannis was justified in defending his superior claim against Renly (because, whether you accept Joff or Stannis as the rightful king, Stannis came before Renly in the line of succession).

First Robert isn't the leader of the rebellion but only a consensus candidate. So even morally he didn't have the right to claim to be the leader of seven kingdoms. He is put forth because of his relation to the Targaryens and he looked kingly while also other rebel leaders refused the throne. Even then him taking the throne isn't lawful. Renly attempted the same. He wanted to win and enforce his 'right'.

I support Stannis too. He was justified in what he did too infact more justified than Renly. Yet both of their ways and justifications are very different and both had good reasons. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 hours ago, John Doe said:

Nonsense. Renly wanted to be king while Stannis came before him. Robb even describes it as "taking his brother's crown". Renly attacked him by doing so. 

How is it Stannis' crown if he declares himself king before Stannis puts a claim forth and no one knows Joffrey and co are illegitimate children?

Granted, as King Tommen's man -- he with the strongest claim after all -- Renly was a treasonous usurper, but he can't deny a crown to Stannis that Stannis neither possessed nor claimed. To say otherwise is just baby town frolics.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

And why didn't Aryn go to Robert at once? I guess he also didn't care about people, or like anybody, and was just as remiss as Stannis.

Perhaps because he had difficulties believing Stannis' tale? He read that book, did he not? He wanted to gather 'evidence', possibly not just to convince Robert but also to convince himself that Stannis may have been up to something. What do you think Jon Arryn's natural first reaction would have been when Stannis suggested to him that the royal children might be bastards born of adultery and incest? Believing that crazy story? Jon Arryn had arranged the marriage between Robert and Cersei.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Give me a break. Yeah, a year before the war ended, when nobody even knew who was going to be the King, Stannis had calculated that his brother would be King, and then not produce any heirs, and then die at a relatively young age, leaving the much coveted throne open for him to cease. What a load, sounds quite likely...if you are a biased Stannis hater, looking for a way to smear his character, and support your fan-fic theories.

I don't have to like a character to speculate about his intentions. But what do you think motivated Stannis to support his brother - a man he clearly did not love, as he himself repeatedly says - instead of his king? And what reason do you have to believe that Stannis did not secretly wish Robert was dead or never even existed? The man had mocked his falcon, an animal young Stannis seemed to care for deeply, the man humiliated Stannis on his own wedding night, etc. Stannis entire character, his values and demeanor, are antithetical to Robert. Robert is a very incorrect, approachable, and funny person. Stannis is the exact opposite. That is no coincidence. Stannis' public persona, the stoic, correct, just man he professes to be is very much an anti-Robert.

But it is a lie. Stannis does not live up to his own standards, not in politics, nor in private life. He condemns whoring yet commits adultery with Melisandre. He considers himself just, and allows Cressen to be humiliated in public. He betrays his king (both Robert and Aerys) yet he executes people when they betray him, etc. 

He only does the right thing when a man of deep integrity like Davos forces him to do so. But Stannis actually knows how to evade such confrontations. If he does want to listen to you he just refuses to see and surrounds himself with sycophants and lickspittles. That's how he treated Cressen and Davos both when he didn't need them. And that's also why Melisandre says that Jon should fear Stannis' silences, not his words. If Stannis is silent he no longer cares about you. And if he doesn't care you are as good as dead.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Oh, so as you've previously stated, Stannis has no right to stick his nose in his brother's business, in an attempt to investigate acts of treason being committed against him, however, Florent does have the right to make unauthorized deals that conflict with his King's wishes and objectives. Sure, that's not a biased, hypocritical stance you've taken. I love how you're full of excuses for Florent, but completely disregard the situation, and ignore the strained relationship between Robert and Stannis, which is as it is, in large part due to Robert's treatment of Stannis dating back to when they were children.

Robert could have been aware of Cersei's adultery. Imagine Robert was sterile or gay (as the Conqueror might have been and Laenor Velaryon clearly was), unwilling to consummate his marriage but still determined to have an heir of his own body. He would have another man do that for him. Investigating the queen's sex life and then not having the guts to tell the king about that is treason, just as it is treason to doubt the parentage of the royal children only after the king himself is safely dead.

Florent is an entirely different matter. As Hand it is part of his job description to speak with the King's Voice in the king's absence. And that includes a king suffering from a depression who refuses to see you. Florent could have known better than to think that Stannis would intend to give up his crown but Stannis had no right to execute or even condemn the man for doing what he did. He had made Florent his Hand and given him his seal.

It is not the servant's fault if he tries his best and the king doesn't listen. When Robert was hunting Ned had to sit the Iron Throne in his stead and make judgments in his name. That's how things work.

5 hours ago, John Doe said:

Aerys was mad and his only living heirs who weren't involved in the war were not only little children not fit to rule, but would most likely have avanged their father/grandfather.

Just Aegon III avenged his mother, father, and brothers, I take it? They could have set up a regency government for Viserys III just fine as they did back then after the Dance.

5 hours ago, John Doe said:

So the only way for the rebels to wipe the slate clean was changing the dynasty. So Robert, leader of the rebellion and the next in line, became king. This is quite different from Renly just randomly ignoring Stannis when crowning himself. 

Nope, it isn't, because Robert decided he wanted to be king while Aerys yet lived. Perhaps even while Rhaegar yet lived. What we know about that indicates he proclaimed himself around the time of the Trident, meaning that it might have been prior the the battle.

5 hours ago, John Doe said:

Renly could have won, but he didn't, so that point is moot. What is relevant is that Stannis was justified in defending his superior claim against Renly (because, whether you accept Joff or Stannis as the rightful king, Stannis came before Renly in the line of succession). 

The thing is, a majority of the Realm doesn't care about a line of succession. They really don't. Renly and Robert and Stannis are all great-grandsons of Aegon V. That is their blood claim. Not their order of birth.

[Darkstream]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 He condemns and executes his wife's uncle because the man was doing his fucking duty. Lord Alester Florent was his Hand. He was speaking with Stannis' voice. If you are a king and name a Hand and then end up giving in to your fucking depression, not receiving anybody or talking to anyone but your mistress then you have no right to complain if your Hand makes decisions without consulting you.

Right, and now who's the one that is "lying or twisting the truth quite often?"

Florent, was not doing his "fucking duty." He was attempting to make a deal with Stannis' enemies, in order to further his own standing, and to the benefited his personal agenda. Even his own brother calls what he did a betrayal. Do you know what betraying your King is called? Treason. And that is punishable by death. Was it cruel to execute him by the flames of Rhllor? Damn strait it was, but Stannis didn't do it out of cruelty, or lack of emotion or empathy, as I'm sure you would have us believe. He had done so because of what he believed to be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Florent, was not doing his "fucking duty." He was attempting to make a deal with Stannis' enemies, in order to further his own standing, and to the benefited his personal agenda. Even his own brother calls what he did a betrayal. Do you know what betraying your King is called? Treason. And that is punishable by death. Was it cruel to execute him by the flames of Rhllor? Damn strait it was, but Stannis didn't do it out of cruelty, or lack of emotion or empathy, as I'm sure you would have us believe. He had done so because of what he believed to be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.

So did then Ned also betray his king when he was condemning Gregor Clegane in the name of his king, something his king would most likely never have done had he been the one making the call?

Making peace with Stannis' enemies was Alester's duty as his Hand. He could make whatever arrangement he wanted to make while his king was incapacitated/refusing to talk to anybody but Melisandre. Alester most likely tried to talk to Stannis about his arrangements. He made not a peace for himself but also for Stannis and Shireen's sake. Stannis was supposed to bend the knee to Joffrey and could in return keep Dragonstone until his death while Shireen was married to Tommen. That was a good deal.

And Stannis was not forced to condemn or execute the man. He could have just refused to go through with the arrangement and he sure as hell has any right to dismiss him as Hand. But this wasn't treason. Treason is if you act against your lord or king's wishes when you know them. But Alester had no idea that Stannis would insist to continue the fight, nor did he have any reason not to believe Stannis wanted to save whatever life and future he and his family might still have.

If Florent had known Stannis' wishes it would have been treason. But the Hand is the king in the king's absence and can only act against the king's wishes and interests if he knows them. If he doesn't (for whatever reason) then the Hand effectively is the king, and the king is bound by any decrees or arrangements the Hand makes. If the king doesn't like that he shouldn't have a Hand.

[Darkstream]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it is actually a wrong conclusion. Cersei had no hand in Robert's death. She just helped him to get drunk. Robert would have never died had he not insisted on hunting the boar all by himself. 

Not true. Cercei was actively plotting to have Robert murdered. The specifics in which he was killed was not important. Her plan was one of taking advantage of opportunistic moments that would have made it look like an accident. If the boar did not kill him, then he would have suffered another seemingly random accident.

A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII

Quote

Varys shrugged. "There were forty riders in the melee. The Lannisters have many friends. Amidst all that chaos, with horses screaming and bones breaking and Thoros of Myr waving that absurd firesword of his, who could name it murder if some chance blow felled His Grace?" He went to the flagon and refilled his cup. "After the deed was done, the slayer would be beside himself with grief. I can almost hear him weeping. So sad. Yet no doubt the gracious and compassionate widow would take pity, lift the poor unfortunate to his feet, and bless him with a gentle kiss of forgiveness. Good King Joffrey would have no choice but to pardon him." The eunuch stroked his cheek. "Or perhaps Cersei would let Ser Ilyn strike off his head. Less risk for the Lannisters that way, though quite an unpleasant surprise for their little friend."

Ned felt his anger rise. "You knew of this plot, and yet you did nothing."

[Darkstream]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Just as Renly (and Robert before him) would have removed all the men standing against him. Renly perhaps betrayed King Joffrey, his brother's chosen and anointed heir, but he never betrayed Stannis because Stannis, too, was trying to steal Joff's crown. Stannis cannot prove that Cersei's children aren't Robert's and until such a time as he can he has no right to challenge Joffrey's claim.

Winning battles helps your claim. After Aegon conquered all of Westeros but Dorne people acknowledge him as their king, never mind the fact that he had no claim. The same way Stannis' claim got getter after he put down Renly and won the allegiance of some of his men.

Aegon was also in a much better position after he had burned Harrenhal and conquered the Stormlands.

That isn't the case. The point is that people in Westeros don't give a rat's ass about the strength of Stannis' claim in comparison to Renly's or Joffrey's. They follow who they want, not whom you think they should. Renly is very much seen as Robert's true heir. He looks like him, talks like him, has his charisma, geniality, and ability to make friends. He is popular. Stannis is nothing like either Robert or Renly. He is the ugly child, the man you ignore because you cannot stand him. Primogeniture means nothing if you lack charisma, especially if you aren't a king's son but just a usurper's brother.

Tell that to Stannis. He rebelled against King Joffrey just as Renly did.

 

This is just a bunch of rambling nonsense. The fact that others have used illegal means to gain the throne, or resorted to strait up conquest, by which they had overthrown the existing government, and installed a new regime, does not equate to them having a better claim.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

If I go into a store and steal an item, that does not equate to me having bought said item. The law says that if I want something, I must purchase it. If I go in and steal something, does that mean that all of the sudden the laws change, and because I stole it, that is now the proper means in which people acquire items? Am I the rightful owner of that item, or am I a criminal who stole it? If somebody in the past stole an item, does that mean that I now have the right to legally take an item without paying for it? If all of my friends support my decision to take an item without paying for it, does that automatically make my act rightful and legal?

This argument being put forth is the most asinine, illogical load of bs I have heard in quite some time. What you and many continue to put forth as a stronger claim is not a claim at all, it is a blatant disregard for an actual claim.

Do people gain power through these means? Yes, but it is not considered gaining power through a stronger claim, it is an illegal means by which you bypass those who have a stronger claim than you.

[Lord Varys]

42 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Not true. Cercei was actively plotting to have Robert murdered. The specifics in which he was killed was not important. Her plan was one of taking advantage of opportunistic moments that would have made it look like an accident. If the boar did not kill him, then he would have suffered another seemingly random accident.

A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII

There are better quotes to back that up. Cersei herself saying it, for instance, back in Bran 2. I'd no trust Varys.

But the point I was making is that Cersei did not, in fact, have a direct hand in Robert's death as it happened. It doesn't matter that she may have tried a more direct approach if it had failed (perhaps she wouldn't have because Ned would have gotten to Robert first, told him about the twincest, and then Cersei would have been arrested?).

If I intend to murder you directly but you got yourself killed all by yourself after you drank some wine I handed to you without double checking how much alcohol it contained then I'm not exactly a murderer. And neither is Cersei.

But Stannis has neither proof nor a very good picture about how Robert's death came about. His claim that Cersei was behind it isn't based on facts.

18 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

This is just a bunch of rambling nonsense. The fact that others have used illegal means to gain the throne, or resorted to strait up conquest, by which they had overthrown the existing government, and installed a new regime, does not equate to them having a better claim.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

If I go into a store and steal an item, that does not equate to me having bought said item. The law says that if I want something, I must purchase it. If I go in and steal something, does that mean that all of the sudden the laws change, and because I stole it, that is now the proper means in which people acquire items? Am I the rightful owner of that item, or am I a criminal who stole it? If somebody in the past stole an item, does that mean that I now have the right to legally take an item without paying for it? If all of my friends support my decision to take an item without paying for it, does that automatically make my act rightful and legal?

This argument being put forth is the most asinine, illogical load of bs I have heard in quite some time. What you and many continue to put forth as a stronger claim is not a claim at all, it is a blatant disregard for an actual claim.

Do people gain power through these means? Yes, but it is not considered gaining power through a stronger claim, it is an illegal means by which you bypass those who have a stronger claim than you.

You have the wrong concept of legality here. There is no real law in Westeros, no letter of the law that is binding to kings and lords. They make they law and they shape the law so that it fits their needs. The succession customs (as well as any other laws in Westeros) are based on precedents. That means if an event X happens then people can later use event X to justify action Y (which may or may not be similar to X).

By usurping the Iron Throne and butchering the royal family Robert set a precedent for a successful rebellion and usurpation as well as regicide and infanticide. Renly and Stannis now following that precedent because their royal brother normalized it. It is not yet accepted behavior but it is quite clear that the Lords of the Reach and the Stormlands wouldn't have made Renly their king if they had believed in some line of succession. Those men are not all immoral thugs or criminally insane.

Robert made it acceptable to just declare yourself king 'by right of your war hammer', with only a flimsy excuse for a blood claim. Renly is following his brother's example there. And anyone recognizing Robert as king (Robb and Stannis included) has no right to dismiss Renly's claims because Robert's claim was as just as good or bad as Renly's blood claim when the man began his rebellion. Robert began as a rebel and a traitor, too.

If such people can become kings then this severely twists the concept of right and wrong just as it twists the concept of kingship itself.

[Darkstream]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis burned the sacred godswood of Storm's End which was part of the castle since the days of Durran Godsgrief. He turned against the Seven on Dragonstone and burned the figures of the Seven as well as people worshiping them later on when they defied him. Stannis is wax in the hands of his foreign witch-whore. What do you think Melisandre would have demanded of Stannis in return for her help to seat him on his throne? The Great Sept of Baelor as her own new seat, transformed into a red temple? The High Septon himself as a sacrifice to R'hllor? The establishment of R'hllorianism as the new religion of the entire Realm?

Either some or all of the above. And if you think that Stannis can deny Melisandre anything she truly desires you are mistaken. That is pretty obvious.

We see in AFfC that the Poor Fellows were never dead. The Faith Militant was never truly gone, not in the heart of the people. They are back there, in strength, even before Tommen restores the orders. The idea that the Realm at large would ever accept a king who does not follow the Seven is a huge stretch, but they sure as hell would never exact a foreign witch as their true queen or allow such a king to turn against the gods of their fathers.

Stannis radicalism, using Melisandre and her faith and powers as a tool to take the throne shows how ambitious he actually is. He doesn't believe in Melisandre's crap. But he realizes that she has power and he is more than happy using that power to get what he wants (a crown he allegedly doesn't want) than trying diplomacy and compromise. He allows and goes along with Melisandre's idea to take out Renly first because of a vision Mel had. The vision that Renly would defeat Stannis on the Blackwater if he was still alive at that point. That's why Renly had to go.

There is a big difference between having a secular mind set, causing you to not care about one religion or the other, and conducting a religious crusade against the Faith and the other religions in Westeros. Sure Stannis allowed Mel to do some questionable things that would have caused some problems, but that is hardly the same as what you are claiming. You only have to look to Stannis' own supporters, whom are comprised of both, devout followers of the Seven, and of Rhllor.

And honestly, I'm not interested in your purely speculative version of what might happen, based on your faulty assessment of Stannis, in a hypothetical scenario.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, Darkstream said:

There is a big difference between having a secular mind set, causing you to not care about one religion or the other, and conduct a religious crusade against the Faith and the other religions in Westeros. Sure Stannis allowed Mel to do some questionable things that would have caused some problems, but that is hardly the same as what you are claiming. You only have to look to Stannis' own followers, whom are comprised of both, devout followers of the Seven, and of Rhllor.

Name me one 'devout follower of the Seven' who is also following Stannis. Davos doesn't count. He is not devout in any real sense, and he only discovered his religion (if you want to call it that) after the Blackwater.

Vice versa, not all the followers of R'hllor among Stannis' men are devout, either. The likes of Justin Massey fake their devotion, just as Axell Florent fakes having visions. Some might be devout, but most are just faking it, hoping to get favors from Selyse, Melisandre, and Stannis.

Even if Stannis tried to change his religious policies in the face of reality (unlikely, considering his character) the Faith would most certainly never bow to this heretic who practices foul sorcery and worships demons. They would cast him down. The Faith technically has no military anymore, but it commands the hearts and souls of the common people, and no king can hope to rule against the common people.

And Stannis would sure as hell not compromise with the Faith. He would demand obedience and submission, the High Septon would refuse, and then he would burn. And with him would burn all of Stannis' hope to remain on the Iron Throne.

This is not all that speculative. If Stannis ever gained a foothold in the South again the Faith Militant would put him down. They would never suffer such a heretic on the Iron Throne.

[Darkstream]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis radicalism, using Melisandre and her faith and powers as a tool to take the throne shows how ambitious he actually is. He doesn't believe in Melisandre's crap. But he realizes that she has power and he is more than happy using that power to get what he wants (a crown he allegedly doesn't want) than trying diplomacy and compromise. He allows and goes along with Melisandre's idea to take out Renly first because of a vision Mel had. The vision that Renly would defeat Stannis on the Blackwater if he was still alive at that point. That's why Renly had to go.

The issue with your assessment of Stannis, as made clear by this comment, is that you don't recognize what are his actual faults, which would explain his actions and motives, and which would also make him an incompetent ruler; Instead, you are trying to explain away his already understandable actions - as per his character - with fabricated, and inaccurate faults. 

He already has quite detrimental, and damning flaws, you don't need to make shit up in order to make him look bad, he does that all by himself, without your help.

[Universal Sword Donor]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Name me one 'devout follower of the Seven' who is also following Stannis. Davos doesn't count. He is not devout in any real sense, and he only discovered his religion (if you want to call it that) after the Blackwater.

Vice versa, not all the followers of R'hllor among Stannis' men are devout, either. The likes of Justin Massey fake their devotion, just as Axell Florent fakes having visions. Some might be devout, but most are just faking it, hoping to get favors from Selyse, Melisandre, and Stannis.

Even if Stannis tried to change his religious policies in the face of reality (unlikely, considering his character) the Faith would most certainly never bow to this heretic who practices foul sorcery and worships demons. They would cast him down. The Faith technically has no military anymore, but it commands the hearts and souls of the common people, and no king can hope to rule against the common people.

And Stannis would sure as hell not compromise with the Faith. He would demand obedience and submission, the High Septon would refuse, and then he would burn. And with him would burn all of Stannis' hope to remain on the Iron Throne.

This is not all that speculative. If Stannis ever gained a foothold in the South again the Faith Militant would put him down. They would never suffer such a heretic on the Iron Throne.

Eh the closest is probably Rolland Storm and we're not even he's really alive.

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

The issue with your assessment of Stannis, as made clear by this comment, is that you don't recognize what are his actual faults, which would explain his actions and motives, and which would also make him an incompetent ruler; Instead, you are trying to explain away his already understandable actions - as per his character - with fabricated, and inaccurate faults. 

He already has quite detrimental, and damning flaws, you don't need to make shit up in order to make him look bad, he does that all by himself, without your help.

I suggest that you actually read the books. I suggest you reread Cressen's prologue (where Stannis agrees with Selyse's talk that he should not try to make an alliance with Lysa Arryn or anyone), his talk about the red falcon (where he admits that he doesn't give a fig about the gods since his parents died and that he is going to use Mel's powers now to get what he wants - the crown he allegedly doesn't want), the fact that Mel had a vision of a guy in Renly's armor defeating Stannis at the Blackwater (which she reveals to Davos in ASoS, if I remember correctly), explaining why they had to take out Renly first.

If you think it was Stannis' idea to target Storm's End before KL you are mistaken. Stannis would never have come up with such a stupid plan. Just as Stannis all by himself would never have insisted that Edric Storm be handed over to him. That was all Melisandre's doing, and Stannis gave his consent to all that. Just as he sure as hell agreed that they would draw Renly to Storm's End to kill him. That was the entire point. Or do you really think Stannis is as stupid as to waste time besieging Storm's End if he doesn't have a plan to actually win? And that plan was to fuck Mel, to give her a part of his own life force through his semen so that she can magically create a shadow assassin in her womb to first kill Renly and then later Cortnay Penrose. Stannis would have never gone to Storm's End in the first place if Mel hadn't laid out the entire plan for him, sex included. Stannis is not stupid. You don't convince him to do something if you don't present good arguments. And 'I've seen it in the flames' alone isn't a good arguments. Especially not at a point in time when Stannis still has no good picture how powerful Mel actually is or how accurate her visions are.

12 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Eh the closest is probably Rolland Storm and we're not even he's really alive.

Rolland Storm is a king's man but what makes you believe that any of those are 'devout followers of the Seven'? Not following R'hllor doesn't make you a devout follower of the Seven.

The men surrounding Stannis at the Wall we know by name are all queen's men. Whatever king's men are left remained on Dragonstone or at Storm's End, or went to Lys with Edric Storm.

[Darkstream]

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Even if we bought Stannis' story that he is the true heir of his brother Robert. Robert himself was just a usurper. The heir of a usurper has no right to anything.

Yes, Robert did usurp the Crown (or more accurately, he rebelled against a Mad King.) Although justifiable, he did so in an illegal manner, and not based on a rightful claim to the throne. Now if you happen to win such a coup, and the rest of the realm accepts you as the leader of the new regime, at that point you can proclaim yourself the new, and legal King - not before. From that point on, you are the rightful King, and make the laws.

So yes, at the time of the wofk, Stannis is the true heir, and has a right to the throne. If Renly had won the war, he would have bypassed the man with the stronger claim, and then could have proclaimed himself the true King.

But Renly failed, so he died as a man with the weaker claim, attempting to usurp the Crown from the currently recognized King, and the rightful heir. 

[Batbob45]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Making peace with Stannis' enemies was Alester's duty as his Hand. He could make whatever arrangement he wanted to make while his king was incapacitated/refusing to talk to anybody but Melisandre. Alester most likely tried to talk to Stannis about his arrangements. He made not a peace for himself but also for Stannis and Shireen's sake. Stannis was supposed to bend the knee to Joffrey and could in return keep Dragonstone until his death while Shireen was married to Tommen. That was a good deal.

 

Alester did it for his own reasons.He did it to save himself. How would arranging Shireen to marry Tommen(who is a good kid) be good for Stannis and Shireen. The Lannister are not known for treating female well(Sansa, Tysha,and Alayaya). Joffrey would torment  Shireen(he think that he can because he is king) if she had to stay at Red Keep. Cersei would also torment her(she petty like that). Tywin might be less mean to her since she is a noble betrothal to a Lannister(she also seem to be smarter than Cersei).Jaimie might treat her well since she would remind him a little of Tyrion. Tyrion might regret allowing the slanderous rumor that PF is Shireen's father to be created.Brienne might sympathized  with her. Granted that the Tyrell might treat her better then they would treat other member of House Florent(Oleena  and Marg might see potential in that kid). They might do as a PR move(being nice to a kid who is not consider socially accepted  in Westeros). Loras might be nice to her because she is Renly's niece.